IS 1225 
G5 
Jopy 1 



. HE MESSAGE OF MOSES 



AND 



MODERN HIGHER CRITICISM 



A LECTURE 

Given in Houston Hall, University of Pennsylvania 



BY 



Rev. FRANCIS E. GIGOT, D.D. 

Professor of Sacred Scripture in St. Joseph's Seminary, Yonkers, N, Y. 

Author of Several Works Introductory to the Study 

of the Holy Scriptures 



New York Cincinnati Chicago 

BENZIGER BROTHERS 

Printers to the Holy Apostolic See 
1915 



THE MESSAGE OF MOSES 



AND 



MODERN HIGHER CRITICISM 



A LECTURE 

Given in Houston Hall, University of Pennsylvania 



JW 



BY 

Rev. FRANCIS E. GIGOT, D.D. 

Professor of Sacred Scripture in St. Joseph's Seminary, Yonkers, JSf, Y. 

Author of Several Works Introductory to the Study 

of the Holy Scriptures 



. t 



New York Cincinnati Chicago 

BENZIGER BROTHERS 

Printer* to the Holy Apottolie See 
1915 



$ 5 



\^ 5 

Cc6 



1 mprimi potest. 



REMIGIUS LAFORT, S.T.D., 

Librorum Censor. 



Peekskill, N. T., March 25, 1915. 



* 



to. 



Copyright, 1915, by Benziger Brothers 

©O.A398723 

M4V ~7 /S/5 **t 



PREFACE 



i 



J 



The present Lecture was delivered in Hous- 
ton Hall, University of Pennsylvania, on 
March 17th, 1915. It forms part of the Free 
Public Lectures given there under the auspices 
of The Catholic Students' Organization Commit- 
tee of that University. Prepared for a general 
audience, the Lecture avoids as far as possible 
technical details and linguistic discussions, and 
lays no claim to be considered as a treatment of 
all the various aspects presented by the important 
topic with which it deals. Within its small com- 
pass, however, it supplies the information re- 
quired for an accurate comprehension of the 
main points at issue between the traditional posi- 
tion concerning the message of Moses and the 
theories of Modern Higher Criticism. It like- 
wise sets forth in a brief, yet it is hoped sufficient, 
manner the principal grounds which can be ap- 
pealed to in order to vindicate the correctness of 
Jewish and Christian tradition concerning 

3 



4 PREFACE 

Moses' literary work and monotheistic message. 
It is the Author's intention at some future time 
to deal fully with the particular points which he 
has simply touched upon in short footnotes. 
Meantime, the lecture is published at the request 
of persons deeply interested in the topic under 
discussion, who are persuaded that its publication 
will prove useful to theological students and to 
general readers. 

St. Joseph's Seminary, 
March 24, 1915. 



SUMMARY 



INTRODUCTION 

The Traditional View concerning Moses. Its B ejection 
by Modern Higher Criticism. The New Theories widely 
received, yet untenable. General Contention of the Higher 
Critics. 

1st part 

The Literary Contents of the Pentateuch Investigated. 
The Four Documents admitted by Higher Criticism: 
Two Prophetical Narratives; The Book of Deuteronomy; 
The Priestly Writing. Deuteronomy and the Priestly 
Writing can be proved as from Moses* pen. The other Two 
Documents were utilized by Israel's Lawgiver. Hence, 
all the Literary Contents can be traced back to Moses. 

IInd part 

The Legislative Contents of the Pentateuch Examined. 
Views of the Higher Critics concerning Order and Date of 
the Pentateuchal Codes. The Critical Theories not neces- 
sary to account for the Development of Hebrew Legis- 
lation. The Critical Theories run counter to fully-ascer- 
tained Facts. Some General Objections of the Higher 
Critics disposed of. 

GENERAL CONCLUSION 

• 5 



THE MESSAGE OF MOSES AND 
MODERN HIGHER CRITICISM 



IN Jewish and Christian circles the name of 
Moses is a blessed and household word. It 
denotes to the rank and file of believers the great 
liberator of Israel from Egypt, the prophetical 
leader of the ancient Hebrews through the Wil- 
derness of Sinai to the border of Chanaan, the 
monotheistic lawgiver of his race, and the in- 
spired writer of the Pentateuch or first five books 
of the Old Testament. Such was Moses accord- 
ing to the constant tradition of ages which we 
find reflected in the Scriptures of the Old Law 
and in those of the New. 

Venerable and authoritative as this tradition 
may appear to us, its testimony is more and more 
confidently declared null and void by the thor- 
ough-going advocates of the Modern Higher 
Criticism. Such testimony, these men boldly as- 
sert, has been fully tested by a host of able and 



8 MESSAGE OF MOSES AND HIGHER CRITICISM 

independent scholars for upwards of a century, 
and its value is nowadays admitted only by 
biassed or by blind followers of Ecclesiastical 
authority. Let anyone, they further tell us, 
examine for himself the new theories which have 
been gradually framed to supersede the old tra- 
ditional authorship of the Pentateuch, and he 
will readily see that, while these theories account 
for the facts on which they rest, the traditional 
view of Moses' message and work must be re- 
garded as decidedly untenable. 1 

Such is the general contention of the Modern 
Higher Critics, such also is the direct challenge 
with which they confront the defenders of the 
traditional position. To go against this conten- 
tion and to take up this challenge, one needs in- 
deed a stout heart at the present day. Promi- 
nent scholars all over the world have become the 
stanch advocates of the new theories, 2 and works 
of all sizes and purposes have placed their views 

i For instance, C. F. Burney writes : "This latter hypothesis 
(i. e. the Graf-Wellhausen theory), with the reconstruction which 
it involves of our view of the development of Israel's religion 
after 750 B. C, may now be regarded as proved up to the hilt 
for any thinking and unprejudiced man who is capable of esti- 
mating for himself the character and value of the evidence." 
(Journal of Theological Studies, April, 1908, p. 321.) 

2 Cf. C. A. Briggs, The Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, p. 
143 sq. (N. Y., 1893.) 



MESSAGE OF MOSES AND HIGHER CRITICISM 9 

within reach of the young and of the old. His- 
tories of the Old Testament and Histories of the 
Religion of Israel have been written on the as- 
sumption that the old traditional position is for- 
ever disproved, and in all such writings the most 
radical and most irreligious theories are pro- 
pounded as the undoubted truth concerning the 
origin and development of Israel's history and 
religion. 3 It would seem, therefore, that to de- 
fend the cause of tradition is to defend a lost 
cause, and that to assail the conclusions of Mod- 
ern Higher Criticism concerning the Message of 
Moses is to waste time and energy. And yet, to 
the mind of the present Lecturer there is con- 
viction that such is not really the case. Nay more, 
to his mind there is no doubt that a dispassion- 
ate study of the principal positions of the High- 
er Critics proves such positions to be untenable, 
and that the careful gathering up of whatever 
elements of truth may be recognized in the new 
theories but strengthens the traditional view 
concerning the person and message of Moses. 

3 Of this description are : H. Oort and I. Hookyaas, The Bible 
for Learners, tr. (Boston, 1888); C. H. Toy, The History of the 
Religion of Israel (Boston, 1894); H. P. Smith, Old Test. History 
(N. Y., 1903) ; The Religion of Israel (N. Y., 1914) ; L. B. Paton, 
The Early Religion of Israel (Boston, 1910) ; Morris Jastrow, 
Hebrew and Babylonian Traditions (N. Y., 1914); J. P. Peters, 
The Religion of the Hebrews (Boston, 1914). 



10 MESSAGE OF MOSES AND HIGHER CRITICISM 

The beginning of Modern Higher Criticism is 
usually referred to the second part of the 
eighteenth century. In those early days of criti- 
cal research the traditional authorship of the 
Pentateuch was accepted by the French Catholic 
physician Jean Astruc in his epoch-making 
"Conjectures sur les Memoires originaux dont 
il paroit que Moyse s'est servi pour composer le 
Livre de la Genese." (Brussels, 1753.) It was 
likewise accepted by the German Protestant pro- 
fessor J. G. Eichhorn in his valuable "Einleitung 
in das Alte Testament," 4 in which the name 
"Higher Criticism" is used for the first time to 
denote the investigation of the literary and his- 
torical contents of the sacred writings. But 
since then Higher Criticism has passed through 
several stages which gradually led it up to its 
present thorough denial of Moses' literary work 
and monotheistic message. Tradition indeed 
survives bearing the same distinct witness to the 
Mosaic authorship of the first five books of Holy 
Writ. But this tradition, Modern Higher Critics 
assert with one accord, is disproved by both the 
literary and the historical analysis of the contents 
of the Pentateuch itself. 

*Cf. Eichhorn's Einleitung, edition of 1790. 



MESSAGE OF MOSES AND HIGHER CRITICISM 11 



On the basis of the literary analysis of these 
contents, they all claim that the only way to 
account for the differences in vocabulary, 
style, manner of representation, etc., noticeable in 
the Pentateuch, is by regarding the work as a 
compilation from four various documents all later 
than the time of Moses. Of course, if such be 
the only way to account for the literary features 
exhibited by the contents of our Pentateuch, the 
Mosaic authorship of the work must be given up. 
But is this really the case? Is it true that the 
four documents accepted by Modern Higher Crit- 
icism — viz. two parallel prophetical narratives, 
the oratorical Book of Deuteronomy, and the 
lawyer-like Priestly Writing — must be assigned 
to different authors who lived between 850 B. C. 
and some time after the return from the Baby- 
lonian Exile? Our distinct answer is that another 
account of the literary features of the Penta- 
teuch, and one consistent with the Mosaic origin 
of its contents, can and should be maintained. 

On the basis of these literary features there 
is no need of ascribing, as Higher Critics do, a 
different date and a different authorship to the 
Priestly Writing and to our Book of Deuter- 



12 MESSAGE OF MOSES AND HIGHER CRITICISM 

onomy. Both are in equally good, and by no 
means late, Hebrew. 5 The lawyer-like style of 
the Priestly Writing and the oratorical language 
of Deuteronomy are compatible with unity of 
authorship, as they undoubtedly were under the 
pen of Noah Webster, of Abraham Lincoln, and 
of other writers. That Moses was the author of 
the rhetorical discourses found in Deuteronomy 
is expressly affirmed by that book, and from the 
point of view of style, there is no positive reason 
to deny it. As far as we know, Moses, "in- 
structed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and 
mighty in words" (Acts vii. 22) , was able to make 
the direct and impassioned addresses recorded in 
that book, and the tendency to redundancy and 
to repetition of stereotyped phrases which ap- 
pears in their style is exactly what we should ex- 
pect from an early effort at public oratory in Is- 
rael. That the same orator, Moses, used also, 
when required, a statistical and legal language 

5 Cf. A. Dillmann, Genesis, tr., vol. 1, p. 7. — According to H. 
L. Strack (art. Pentateuch, in Schaff-Herzog Ency. of Religious 
Knowl., vol. Ill, p. 1795, N. Y., 1887), "The language of P (i. e. 
the Priestly Writing) deserves attention as an evidence for its 
antiquity. V. Ryssel in his careful treatise on the language of 
P (De Elohistae Pentateuchici Sermone, Leipsig, 1878) reaches 
results inconsistent with the supposition of post-exilic origin." 
Cf. also F. E. Spencer, in Lex Mosaica, p. 515 sqq. — F. Giese- 
brecht's view of P's Aramaisms is rejected by S. R. Driver, Intr. 
to Old Test. Lit., p. 156, 



MESSAGE OF MOSES AND HIGHER CRITICISM 13 

like that of the Priestly Writing is proved by the 
style of passages directly referred to him in the 
other books of the Pentateuch; such passages, 
for instance, as the list of Israel's encampments 
(Numb, xxxiii), the commands to the children 
of Israel (Numb, xxxiv), the Book of the Cove- 
nant (Exod. xx-xxiii), the last of which pre- 
sents appended to its laws an exhortation to 
faithfulness to God in genuine Deuteronomic 
style, and thus ascribes to Moses both a legal 
and an oratorical manner of writing. This is 
proved likewise by the minute details concern- 
ing the Tabernacle, the Ark, the priestly dress, 
etc., for, on the one hand, they are expressly 
stated to have been imparted to Moses by God 
Himself, and, on the other, their perfect faithful- 
ness to the corresponding elements in Egyptian 
worship 6 points to Moses as the one who because 
of his special training in Egypt could easily bear 
such details in mind and put them down in writ- 
ing. Thus, then, we can and should account for 
the literary features of the Priestly Writing and 
of the Book of Deuteronomy without giving up 
the traditional authorship of these parts of the 
Pentateuch. 

«Cf. W. Smith, The Book of Moses (London, 1868); see also 
R. V. French, Lex Mosaica, p. 22 sqq., p. 521 (London, 1894). 



14 MESSAGE OF MOSES AND HIGHER CRITICISM 

It is true that when we turn next to the two 
prophetical narratives which are admitted by the 
Higher Critics, we find ourselves in presence of 
two literary sources actually utilized in the com- 
position of our Pentateuch. In regard to style, 
these narratives do differ from each other, they 
also do differ from those portions of the Penta- 
teuch which, as we have just seen, should be re- 
ferred to Moses' own pen. Nevertheless, the lit- 
erary features of these narratives afford no rea- 
son for thinking that their contents originated 
centuries after Moses' death, 7 and that conse- 
quently they were not utilized by Mm in compos- 
ing our Pentateuch. We have in the Book of 
X umbers (xi. 25 sqq.) a distinct proof that 
there were prophets among the multitudes which 
had been freed from Egypt, and that Moses him- 
self knew of the existence of such prophets and 
approved of their spirit. We have no need, 
therefore, of referring ourselves to centuries after 
Moses to account for the prophetical tone of the 

7 J and E (i. e. the two prophetical narratives) are ascribed by 
many Critics to prophets of Juda and Ephraim respectively. 
Kuenen, Reuss, Schrader, etc., regard them both as of Eph- 
raimitic origin. In fact, neither J nor E has any specific allusion 
to the divided kingdom, and this is very unnatural if either was 
composed after the disruption of Solomon's empire, as Critics 
affirm. (Cf. J. Skinner, Intern. Critical Commentary, Genesis, p. 
liv sq., N. Y., 1910). 



MESSAGE OF MOSES AND HIGHER CRITICISM 15 

two literary sources in question. Moses, himself a 
prophet, knew how to write, and so also did at 
least some of the prophets around him. That two 
of these in thankfulness to the God of their ances- 
tors should record His deeds of mercy toward the 
patriarchs of old, and chronicle His present inter- 
ventions on behalf of the people of His choice, 
is readily intelligible. In their eyes the God 
who had but lately redeemed Israel from Egypt 
was no other than the God who from of old had 
preordained all things in behalf of His elect 
people, and who, at sundry times, had promised 
to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that their pos- 
terity would inherit the land of Chanaan. With 
a watchful Providence He had guided the wan- 
dering steps of these great ancestors of the He- 
brew race, and with a strong arm and an out- 
stretched hand He had in due time proceeded 
to fulfil His solemn promises to them. The 
present generation of their descendants had, in- 
deed, by its apostasy at the foot of Sinai, proved 
unworthy of witnessing that fulfilment. But 
such fulfilment could not be frustrated, and was 
simply delayed for a short while. God's timely 
help under the trying circumstances of the jour- 
ney of the Exodus and of the wanderings in the 
Wilderness could be easily pointed out as an un- 



16 MESSAGE OF MOSES AND HIGHER CRITICISM 

questionable proof of this. And so one can 
readily understand how two prophets in the com- 
pany of Moses would feel prompted to write, for 
the instruction and encouragement of their fel- 
low Hebrews, the two narratives which we find 
embodied in our Pentateuch. Amidst natural 
differences of expression, their descriptions of the 
journey of the Exodus, their references to places, 
their allusions to the productions of the Wilder- 
ness, etc., would be most accurate, as they have 
been verified by numerous travellers in the 
course of the nineteenth century. 8 That the 
Priestlv Writer of the Pentateuch, no other than 
Moses, 9 as we have seen, was actually acquainted 
with such literary works is admitted by nearly 
every critic of our day. That he utilized them, 
adding to them, fitting them into his general 
scheme of history and legislation, best accounts, 
among other things, for the two following facts : 
(1) their contents which bear on events falling 
within Moses' lifetime are more closelv fused 

»Cf. S. C. Bartlett, From Egypt to Palestine (N. Y., 1879); 
F. E. Gigot, Special Introd. to the Old Test., vol. I, p. 67 sqq. 
(N. Y., 1901). 

9 It is confirmatory of this view, that after Exodus "the inde- 
pendent main stock of the Priestly Code more and more gives 
way to later additions, and ceases altogether, it appears, at the 
death of Moses." (Wellhausen, quoted by J. Orr, Problem of the 
Old Test., p. 340. N. Y„ 1905). 



MESSAGE OF MOSES AND HIGHER CRITICISM 17 

with the contributions by the Priestly Writer 
than are those which bear on events prior to the 
lawgiver's time; (2) the distinct style of redac- 
tion of the same priestly writer ceases altogether 
at the death of Moses. 10 We are thus led to ad- 
mit that Moses himself, the author of the Priest- 
ly Writing and of Deuteronomy, used the two 
prophetical narratives in composing our Penta- 
teuch, so that we can account for all the literary 
contents of the Mosaic writings without depart- 
ing in the least from the traditional authorship 
of the work. 11 

10 "In the Book of Josue, P [the Priestly Writer] does not oc- 
cupy the regulative position, nor supply the framework, as it 
does in the Pentateuch." G. A. Smith, art. Joshua, in Hastings, 
Bib. Diet. vol. II, p. 784. — According to Critics also, the Deutero- 
nomic writer in Josue, is not simply D, but D2, i. e. "a writer 
. . . strongly imbued with the spirit of Deuteronomy" (Driver, 
Intro, to Old Test. Liter., p. 104), so that the genuine Deuteronomic 
writer ceases also at the death of Moses, a literary fact which 
points to Moses as the single author of both Deuteronomy and the 
Priestly Writing. — Finally, R. Kittel (Hist, of the Hebrews, tr., 
vol. I, p. 75 sqq.) gives reasons for regarding D as the editor of 
J and E before they were combined in the form of Wellhausen's 
JE. (Cf. Exod. ix. 30 where [in the Hebrew] the divine names 
Jehovah, Elohim appear on Moses' lips, in the same combined 
manner as in Gen. ii sqq.) 

ii The length of the work does not make against this. In 
Egypt, in Moses' time, literature was the first and best of em- 
ployments, and the "Great Harris papyrus" which is 133 ft. 
long by nearly 17 inches broad, goes back to that period. (Cf. 
G. Rawlinson, in "The Pulpit Commentary," Exodus, vol. I, pp. 
x, xL) 



18 MESSAGE OF MOSES AND HIGHER CRITICISM 

II 

Modern Higher Critics, however, do not depend 
solely, or even chiefly, on the literary analysis of 
the Pentateuch to deny Moses' literary work 
and monotheistic message. They principally rest 
this denial on their historical criticism of the 
legislative portions of the Mosaic writings. 

These portions fall naturally into three sets of 
laws or Codes which Critics agree in regarding 
as composed in the following order : ( 1 ) the Book 
of the Covenant, contained in the prophetical 
narratives; (2) the Deuteronomic Code, embod- 
ied in our Book of Deuteronomy; and (3) the 
Priestly Code, an integrant part of the Priestly 
Writing. Now, Higher Critics pronounce these 
three Codes to be so incompatible on vital points, 
that the only way to account for their origin is 
by admitting that in the Pentateuch we have 
records of laws laid down at various periods of 
national history, and dealing with radically dif- 
ferent conditions of life. Thus, according to 
them, the only way to view aright the Book of 
the Covenant is by understanding its enactments 
as exactly suited to the times of the Judges and 
of the early Kings of Israel. In this first set of 
laws, we are told, Jehovah is simply the national 



MESSAGE OF MOSES AND HIGHER CRITICISM 19 

God of Israel, in the same way as Chemos, for 
instance, is the national god of Moab; altars of 
earth or of unhewn stones can be erected in vari- 
ous places ; sacrifices of the most elementary kind 
can be offered by anyone ; and the people lead an 
agricultural life in a somewhat primitive stage 
of civilization. Again, to their mind, the only 
view to take of the second Pentateuchal Code, 
which they hold to be that of Deuteronomy, is 
to regard it as fitting in with the closing years 
of the Hebrew monarchy, with the time when 
King Josias (7th cent. B. C.) enforced the 
enactments of a book of the Law then found in 
the Temple and no other, it is claimed, than the 
Deuteronomic Code. This, it is affirmed, is a new 
and higher Code suited to a more advanced age 
in Hebrew history. Jehovah is now conceived 
not simply as the God of His people Israel, but 
as the only one true God. Henceforth, there 
must be only one sanctuary, one altar. Hence- 
forth, the ministers of the altar in the Temple are 
limited to the members of the tribe of Levi, and 
those who had ministered as Levites at the high 
places of worship different from Jerusalem are 
to be provided with a maintenance in a rather 
scanty and precarious manner. Finally, pres- 
ent day Critics affirm that the only right way to 



20 MESSAGE OF MOSES AND HIGHER CRITICISM 

understand their third, the Priestly, Code, is by- 
regarding its laws as suited to the period after 
the return from the Babylonian Exile. In both 
this Priestly Code and this period of Hebrew his- 
tory, it is said, the one national concern is to 
organize the community on thoroughly priestly 
lines : the priesthood is now restricted to one sin- 
gle Levitical family, that of Aaron; the office of 
the high priest is invested with a peculiar sanc- 
tity; the Levites are made thoroughly subordinate 
to the priests and are provided for by means of 
tithes and cattle and cities and lands ; the system 
of sacrifices and feasts, now to culminate in the 
Day of the Atonement, wears a new and dis- 
tinctly national character and is protected by a 
most elaborate ritual; there is no insistence upon 
the one altar and sanctuary because this was 
already firmly established; nor any effort at en- 
forcing monotheism because the possibility of 
rivalry with Jehovah on the part of other gods 
is no longer thought of. 

Plainly, if the foregoing is a correct theory, 
Modern Higher Critics are justified in their 
thorough denial of Moses' literary work and 
monotheistic message. Evidently, Moses can- 
not be the author of records of laws framed in 
view of circumstances all distinctly later than 



MESSAGE OF MOSES AND HIGHER CRITICISM 21 

his time. Evidently, too, he is not the introducer 
into Israel of a monotheism which gradually 
evolved in the consciousness of the Hebrew na- 
tion only centuries after his death. And hence, 
no less evidently, there is no other way of main- 
taining the traditional view concerning him, save 
by yielding blindly to the voice of authority. 

But to the mind of the present Lecturer there 
is no doubt that this theory of the Critics is not 
correct, and that there is another way 12 of ac- 
counting for the facts to which it runs counter, 
which other way is, moreover, in perfect harmony 
with the traditional position. 

Of the three Codes contained in the Penta- 
teuch, the Book of the Covenant stands natur- 
ally first, not because of its superior antiquity, 
but because of its preliminary character. It is 
a brief body of regulations intended to serve as 
a basis for the formal ratification of the Cove- 
nant between Jehovah and the people of Israel. 
Accordingly, it lays down a few simple and com- 
prehensive rules, framed in the spirit of the reli- 
gion of Jehovah, for the government of the peo- 
ple in their relations to one another, and in their 
relation to God, to which in a solemn act of wor- 

12 The following sketch of it is mainly from W. H. Green, The 
Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, p. 144 sqq. (N. Y., 1900). 



22 MESSAGE OF MOSES AND HIGHER CRITICISM 

ship they were soon to pledge assent. The very 
agricultural allusions of this Code, to which Crit- 
ics appeal as pointing to a people settled in 
Chanaan, are in direct harmony with its Mosaic 
origin and its delivery at Sinai. At that early 
date both Moses and the people under his guid- 
ance felt sure that they would soon be settled in 
full possession of the promised Land, for neither 
he nor they could imagine such an act of gross 
rebellion as that for which a lapse of forty years 
to be spent in the desert was actually to inter- 
vene. It would have been strange, indeed, if the 
law given in the midst of such circumstances did 
not look beyond the desert as the abode of the 
people, and took no note of what was in immedi- 
ate prospect. It was quite appropriate for it to 
contemplate their expected life in Chanaan, and 
to give regulations respecting the fields and vine- 
yards and olive-yards which they were shortly to 
possess. 

The second Code contained in our Pentateuch 
likewise appears there in its appropriate place. 
After the reading of the Book of the Covenant 
and the national assent pledged to its observation, 
the way was open for a fuller development of 
the duties and obligations which the relation now 
established between the two contracting parties 



MESSAGE OF MOSES AND HIGHER CRITICISM 23 

naturally involved. Jehovah, as the covenant 
God of Israel, was henceforth to take up 
His abode in the midst of His people. This 
made it necessary that detailed instructions 
should be given, for which there was no occa- 
sion before, respecting the sacred Tabernacle, the 
sacrifices to be performed in it, the officiating 
priesthood, the set times for special solemnities, 
and in general the entire ritual to be observed 
by a holy people for the expression and per- 
petuation of their communion with a holy God. 
All this was embodied in the Priestlv Code, in 
which the scanty general provisions of the Book 
of the Covenant were replaced by a vastly ex- 
panded and minutely specified ceremonial. In- 
tricate and minute as this ritual Law may appear 
to us, it was not an altogether new thing to a 
people long familiar with the parallel ritual in 
Egyptian worship; nor was it a development 
implying the lapse of ages with an altered civiliza- 
tion and a corresponding advance of the popular 
notions of the divine Being and of the homage 
which should be paid to Him. 

Finally, the Pentateuch rightly ascribes to the 
Deuteronomic Code the third place in its sets 
of Hebrew laws. At the close of the forty years' 
Wandering, when the great legislator was about 



24 MESSAGE OF MOSES AND HIGHER CRITICISM 

to die, he naturally felt it his duty to exhort to 
faithfulness in the service of Jehovah, their God, 
those whom he long knew to be a rebellious 
people. In view of this he recapitulated in the 
hearing of Israel the laws of the Book of the 
Covenant with such modifications and additions 
as were suggested by the circumstances of the 
present, the experiences of the past, and the pros- 
pects of the immediate future. "These testa- 
mentary addresses are stamped with the fresh- 
ness and richness of the reminiscences of the aged 
lawgiver, with a freedom in expanding historical 
incidents, laws, and, above all, the Decalogue, 
which is scarcely conceivable except on the suppo- 
sition that the speaker was that lawgiver himself. 13 
The Deuteronomic Code thus enacted was a devel- 
opment, not as the Priestly Code had been on 
the side of the ritual, but considered as a Code 
for popular guidance in civil and religious mat- 
ters. The enlargement, which we here find, of 
the simple regulations of the Book of the Cove- 
nant implies no longer interval and no greater 
change in the condition or constitution of the 
people than is provided for in the Biblical nar- 
rative. At the same time, the fact that we do 

is F. Delitzsch, quoted by E. C. Bissell, The Pentateuch, p. 255 
footn. (N. Y., 1885). 



MESSAGE OF MOSES AND HIGHER CRITICISM 25 

not find in Deuteronomy a ritual so elaborate 
and detailed as in the Priestly Code is not be- 
cause the latter is the further development of a 
still later period, when ceremonies were multi- 
plied and held in higher esteem, but simply be- 
cause the Priestly Code was a professional book 
especially meant for priests in direct charge of 
the altar, and Deuteronomy a popular book for 
the guidance of the Israelites at large in mat- 
ters more immediately within their province. 
Towards the close of the monarchy, the Deu- 
teronomic Law alone needed to be re-enforced, 
inasmuch as the divine service, chiefly regulated 
by the Priestly Code, had long been carried out 
in accordance with its ritual precepts. 14 After 
the Exile, on the contrary, the Priestly Code 
was of paramount importance to the restored 
nation, for the simple reason that the Temple, 
its services, and all things connected therewith 
had been swept away by the unprecedented 
calamity from which Israel had just been 
rescued. 

14 The passages from Isaias, Amos, Jeremias, to which Critics 
triumphantly appeal as disproving the existence of the Priestly 
Code in the time of those prophets, do not bear this out. (Cf. von 
Orelli, and other commentators; J. Robertson, The Early Religion 
of Israel, p. 443 sqq. N. Y., 1892; J. Orr, The Problem of the 
Old Test., p. 155 sqq.; p. 324 sq. N. Y., 1905; W. Smith, The Book 
of Moses, p. 211 sqq.; p. 501 sq.). 



26 MESSAGE OF MOSES AND HIGHER CRITICISM 

Such, briefly sketched, is the other, and ob- 
viously most rational, manner to account for the 
differences which exist between the three sets 
of Hebrew legislation embodied in our Penta- 
teuch. 15 Most reasonable it is to regard the 
Book of the Covenant as the Constitution 
framed at the very beginning of the Hebrew 
nation by the liberator of Israel. Most reason- 
able it is to admit that this Constitution, dis- 
tinctly religious in character, was soon expanded 
into a ritual Law impregnated with Moses' mem- 
ories of Egyptian outward worship. Most rea- 
sonable, finally, it is, to think that before dying, 
the same Moses exhorted, as we find in Deu- 
teronomy, the people whom he had guided, and 
whom he was about to leave, to a thorough 
faithfulness in the service of the true God and 
their God. And all this naturally agrees with 
the manner in which the literary features of the 
Pentateuch point to Moses as the author of its 
contents. 

All this traverses, it is true, the views freely 
circulated and widely accepted in Critical cir- 
cles. But why should it not do so? Higher 

16 This rational explanation is in direct conformity with 
Scriptural statements the obvious import of which Critics rule out 
in virtue of their evolutionary theories of Israel's religion. 



MESSAGE OF MOSES AND HIGHER CRITICISM 27 

Critics maintain that all Israel was not enslaved 
in Egypt, and was not, therefore, delivered by- 
Moses. But was there ever a nation willing 
falsely to trace back its origin to such a degraded 
condition, and could not the deliverance from 
Egypt under the leadership of Moses be as dis- 
tinctly and as faithfully remembered as the win- 
ning of American independence under the lead- 
ership of Washington, or the liberation of 
France under that of Joan of Arc ? They assert 
that the Hebrews owed their belief in only one 
God to prophets living centuries after Moses, 
whereas these same prophets bear distinct wit- 
ness to the fact that such belief was that of their 
nation ever since God freely chose it as His own 
people. 16 They affirm that the Deuteronomic 
Code originated in the closing years of the mon- 
archy, ignoring all the while that this same Code 
contains laws the obvious import of which makes 
against that late date. Thus, Deuter. xvii. 14, 15 
contemplates the Hebrew monarchy as a thing of 
the future, and lays down that the future king 
should not be a foreign born: on the one hand, 
this enactment is unintelligible on the part of 
a supposed lawgiver living at a time when his 

ie Cf. Amos ii. 9 sqq.; iii. 1 sqq.; Osee xi. 1; xii. 9 (Heb. verse 
10). 



28 MESSAGE OF MOSES AND HIGHER CRITICISM 

nation had already had a long series of kings 
and was in no way tempted to set at its head 
a foreigner, seeing that for centuries the royal 
succession had been firmly established in the fam- 
ily of David ; on the other hand, this same enact- 
ment is most intelligible on the part of Moses 
who naturally anticipated that after his death 
the Hebrews would desire a king like all other 
nations, and no less naturally forbade the elec- 
tion in such case of a foreign born, fully aware 
as he was of the misfortunes which had befallen 
Egypt when ruled over by a foreign dynasty. 
Again, Deuter. xx. 16-18 and Deuter. xxv. 17-9 
decree the extermination of the Chanaanites and 
of the Amalekites respectively: now to refer the 
framing of such laws to the closing years of the 
monarchy is to make them meaningless, inas- 
much as by that time both Chanaanites and 
Amalekites had ceased to be; whereas to ascribe 
them to the time of Moses is most natural, since 
these hostile tribes not only existed then, but 
had to be done away with for the very reasons 
which the lawgiver points out. With regard to 
the Priestly Writing, the views which obtain in 
Critical circles are likewise untenable. As this 
Priestly Writing explicitly refers the whole 
ceremonial Law to Moses, Critics freely charge 



MESSAGE OF MOSES AND HIGHER CRITICISM 29 

its supposed late authors with projecting back 
into Moses' time the ritual and institutions of 
their own age, with recasting throughout the 
documents at their disposal to make them con- 
form with their late religious conceptions, and 
the same Critics never suspect that they them- 
selves are open to a precisely similar charge 
when they mutilate, displace, interpret these 
same documents to make them fit with evolution- 
ary theories of Israel's laws and institutions in 
their own day. Critics have no doubt that the 
said Priestly Writers were not able to view cor- 
rectly the distant past history of their race, and 
they are not aware that at this much later date 
they themselves can hardly be better able to view 
correctly the history of a race singularly dif- 
ferent from their own. Modern Critics assume 
that the laws of Israel grew like those of other 
nations; the Priestly Writing knows that it is 
not so. Hebrews kings did not make laws, but 
found them in existence, and were expected to 
comply with them; and the most minute enact- 
ments of the Priestly Code, in particular, are so 
accurately stamped with parallel details in 
Egyptian worship as to give indication of their 
origin in Moses' time. It will always look 
strange, whatever Modern Critics may say to 



30 MESSAGE GF MOSES AND HIGHER CRITICISM 

the contrary, that the Priestly Code, if framed 
after the Exile, as they assert, should contain a 
number of laws which were without a motive, 
and could not be carried out after the Exile. 17 * 
To date, for instance, the command to kill the 
sacrifices only at the Tabernacle (Lev. 
xvii. 1 sqq.) from that late period in Jewish 
history is passing strange; in that period the 
Tabernacle existed no longer, and the appro- 
priate time for the framing of the law in ques- 
tion is manifestly the forty years' Wandering 
in the Wilderness. 

Again, had Higher Critics carefully weighed 
the terms of the three Pentateuchal Codes, 
viewed in their right order of time, they would 
never have claimed that the Hebrew legisla- 
tion varied essentially as regards the cen- 
tralization of worship in one place, or that only 
in the course of centuries the priestly office of 
offering sacrifices was restricted first to the whole 
Levitical tribe and next to the sole Levitical 
family of Aaron. From the very first, the Book 
of the Covenant evidently refers to only one 
place of national worship, when in general terms 
it bids Israel to appear three times a year before 

17 Cf. H. L. Strack, art. Pentateuch, in Schaff-Herzog, Ency. of 
Religious Know!., vol. Ill, p. 1794 sq. (N. Y., 1887). 



MESSAGE OF MOSES AND HIGHER CRITICISM 31 

Jehovah (Exod. xxiii. 17), an expression which 
decidedly points to a centralization of the wor- 
ship. In the next, the Priestly, Code, the Tab- 
ernacle is specified as this regular place wher- 
ever it may be set up. And in the last, the Deu- 
teronomic, Code, it is simply laid down that this 
regular place shall not be shifted any more, but 
be the particular spot which Jehovah shall Him- 
self designate in due time. The same absence 
of discrepancy exists between the three Codes 
in question, with regard to the Levitical ministers 
of the altar. In the Book of the Covenant these 
ministers are not mentioned at all, for the ob- 
vious reason that Moses had not yet appointed 
the Levites, i. e. the men of his own tribe, for 
the exclusive service of the sanctuary. In the 
Priestly Code these Levites are regularly or- 
ganized, the simple Levites for the inferior serv- 
ices, and those of Aaronic descent for the priestly 
ministry under a high priest after the pattern of 
the Egyptian priesthood. And finally, in the 
Deuteronomic Code, these simple Levites are 
naturally regarded as already set apart for the 
divine service, and no less naturally recom- 
mended to the generosity of their fellow- 
Hebrews, for the provision of cities and lands in 
their own behalf, that is to say their main source 



32 MESSAGE OF MOSES AND HIGHER CRITICISM 

of income, is to take effect only after the settle- 
ment in Chanaan. 

Finally, Critics think it strange, if Moses is the 
author of the Pentateuch, that this work should 
always speak of him in the third person, should 
contain statements indicative of a later author- 
ship than his time, and conclude with the very 
account of his death. But why should this be 
considered strange? Such pagan writers as 
Thucydides, Xenophon, Csesar, 18 and such 
sacred authors as Isaias, Osee, Amos, use the 
third person when speaking of themselves in 
works undoubtedly their own. Moreover, speak- 
ing of oneself in the third person was common 
in Egypt in Moses' time. 19 Some of the state- 
ments appealed to as pointing to a time later 
than Moses, point indeed to it. But why should 
they not be numbered among those glosses 
which, as every Scriptural scholar knows, were 
inserted into the sacred text long after the com- 
position of a book of Holy Writ? Of course, 
the account of Moses' death at the end of Deu- 
teronomy is not from his own pen. But why 
should such account be regarded as interfering 

is Cf. W. Smith, The Book of Moses, p. 552 sq.; p. 556 sq. 
(London, 1868). 

is Cf. G. Rawlinson, in "The Pulpit Commentary," Exodus, vol. 
I, p. xv. 



MESSAGE OF MOSES AND HIGHER CRITICISM 33 

with the Mosaic authorship of the books to 
which it is appended? Can it not be readily- 
understood as an addition by a subsequent au- 
thor who wished thereby to complete the record 
which these books contain of Moses' personal 
work and career? Caesar's Commentaries on the 
Gallic War were indeed completed by Hirtius, 
a friend of his, through the addition of an eighth 
book, but nobody dreams of rejecting the tra- 
ditional authorship by Caesar of the seven pre- 
ceding books on that account. 

It is now time briefly to conclude. In the 
course of this Lecture, the immense labors and 
the great ingenuity of numerous workers in the 
field of Biblical Criticism have not been called 
into question. Acquainted, as it was his bounden 
duty to be for the last twenty-five years, with the 
writings of such Critics, the present Lecturer has 
had many an opportunity to notice and wonder 
at the knowledge of linguistics, the depth of re- 
search, the mastery of details, etc., of which the 
works referred to give evidence. He would 
therefore have deemed it an injustice to past 
generations of Critics, and also to his present 
audience, to speak disparagingly of the ability 
and industry of scholars whose views he did not 
see his way to share. It was his plain duty to 



34 MESSAGE OF MOSES AND HIGHER CRITICISM 

take into account the elements of truth included 
in theories which he felt could not be held on 
scientific grounds, and hence he has readily 
granted to his opponents that certain differences, 
literary and legislative, existed in the contents of 
our Pentateuch. At the same time, he has argued, 
as the interest of truth compelled him to do, that 
such differences with regard to these literary and 
legislative contents, far from disproving, dis- 
tinctly strengthen the traditional position con- 
cerning the writings and mission of Moses, the 
great lawgiver of Israel. Within the short space 
of time at his disposal, he could do no more than 
to examine the leading positions of the thorough- 
going advocates of Modern Higher Criticism, 
and to point out the principal general reasons 
for rejecting them. In view of these reasons, 
there is no doubt that when the literary contents 
of the Pentateuch are inquired into, they are seen 
to be compatible with the traditional authorship 
of the work. There is likewise no doubt that the 
actual development of Hebrew legislation in the 
three Codes of the Pentateuch is rightly ac- 
counted for, not bv the views of it which are 
prevalent in Critical circles, but by the traditional 
position from which Critics should never have 
departed. The particular elements of truth 



MESSAGE OF MOSES AND HIGHER CRITICISM 35 

brought out by the literary and historical investi- 
gation of the contents of the Mosaic writings are 
thus found to tally, as might be expected they 
would, with the general truth handed down by 
the proverbially tenacious tradition of Jews and 
Christians. Great, indeed, was the message it 
was given Moses to convey to Israel, second only 
it was to the message imparted by the Savior of 
mankind: "The Law was given through Moses, 
grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." 
(John i. 17.) 



PRINTED BY BENZIGER BROTHERS, NEW YORK. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS « 




022 009 276 8 



OTHER WORKS 
BY THE SAME AUTHOR 



General Introduction to the Study of the Holy 
Scriptures. 8vo, net, 2.50. 

Part I. Biblical Canonics. Part II. Biblical Textual Criticism. Part 
III. Biblical Hermeneutics. Part IV. Biblical Inspiration. Facsimiles of 
Manuscripts, Inscriptions, . etc. 

General Introduction to the Study of the Holy 
Scriptures. Abridged Edition. Svo, net, 1.50. 

Special Introduction to the Study of the Old 
Testament. 

Part I. The Historical Books. 8vo, net, 1.50. 
Part II. The Didactic Books and Prophetic Writings. 
8vo, net, 2.00. 

Outlines of New Testament History. 8vo, 
net, 1.50. 

"An excellent work — learned, brief, well-written, and interesting. It is 
especially adapted for seminaries, but every intelligent Catholic will derive 
great profit from its perusal, and it will be an invaluable aid for teachers 
in colleges, academies, and the higher classes of Christian doctrine." 

— Messenger of the Sacred Heart. 

Outlines of Jewish History, from Abraham to 
Our Loid. 8vo, net, 1.50. 

The object of this volume is to present to the modern eye, in a vivid and 
accurate manner, the picture of the civilization which the Jews attained in the 
various periods of their national existence and to sketch briefly the history of 
the true religion from Abraham to the coming of Our Lord. 

Christ's Teaching Concerning Divorce in the 
New Testament 

An Exegetical Study. Dedicated by Permission to His 
Eminence Cardinal Farley. 8vo, cloth, net, 1.50. 

The present exegetical study was undertaken with the intimate convic- 
tion that a thorough investigation of the earliest documents of Christianity 
would supply a clear vindication of the indissoluble nature of Christian 
marriage as distinctly maintained by the living tradition of the Roman 
Church and solemnly proclaimed by the Council of Trent. 



